I should have said it's mixed news--good in that someone besides WPI finally found it outside of prostrate cancer. Good that blood isn't the only game in town, good that so few healthy controls tested positive. It's unsettling, though, that the study raises so many issues and questions (as others have noted).

I should have said it's mixed news--good in that someone besides WPI finally found it outside of prostrate cancer. Good that blood isn't the only game in town, good that so few healthy controls tested positive. It's unsettling, though, that the study raises so many issues and questions (as others have noted).

Click to expand...

I'll add another "good". It's good that the immunocompromised group (#3) was not infected at rates similar to those found by WPI in CFS patients. By no means conclusive, but this new study seems inconsistent with the notion that immunocompromised people would all have 67% to 98% infection rates. So this further implies that the association found by WPI is more consistent with XMRV => CFS than it is with CFS => XMRV.

The scary implication is what is happening to the immune system of people with CFS. Think about it. There is an increased incidence of 7% of XMRV between people taking drugs to surpress their immune system over the health controls. In the original WPI study in science the number of CFS patients with it was 65% (or there about, too lazy to look). They then said it was actually higher.

That means if you have CFS your immune system is more trashed than a group on immune surpressing drugs. That should get someone's attention...

I'll add another "good". It's good that the immunocompromised group (#3) was not infected at rates similar to those found by WPI in CFS patients. By no means conclusive, but seems inconsistent with the notion that immunocompromised people would all have 67% to 98% infection rates. So implies that the association found by WPI is more consistent with XMRV => CFS than it is with CFS => XMRV.

Click to expand...

well seems so but we can't compare these conclusions as they used different methods: possible that wpi tests were more sensitive?
Although the same percentge positive in the control group does suggest your interpretation is correct

The scary implication is what is happening to the immune system of people with CFS. Think about it. There is an increased incidence of 7% of XMRV between people taking drugs to surpress their immune system over the health controls. In the original WPI study in science the number of CFS patients with it was 65% (or there about, too lazy to look). They then said it was actually higher.

That means if you have CFS your immune system is more trashed than a group on immune surpressing drugs. That should get someone's attention...

Click to expand...

Your analysis implicitly assumes that the CFS ==> XMRV infection; this is not at all established, and looks less likely all the time (see post #64 above).

Are the authors of the negative studies going to accuse the Germans of contamination or other sloppiness? And then get in their precision BMWs to drive home? I have never uttered the words "in your face" before. But, you know, in your FACE. I am certain my whole family is infected already, but I worry about the kids in my son's kindergarten...

I had a feeling the CDC study was delayed because the gov't is, like, ZOMG, what are we going to do - this looks like evidence that I may be right.

Click to expand...

No doubt the naysayers will find something to pick on, kicking up some kind of dust cloud to obscure the true implications.

Rrrr, looks like a few more questions for the good Dr. Coffin arise here.

Your analysis implicitly assumes that the CFS ==> XMRV infection; this is not at all established, and looks less likely all the time (see post #64 above).

Click to expand...

I actually wasn't assuming that CFS causes XMRV infection. I was more looking at it from a worse case scenario. If you were a total sceptic you and were absolutely convinced that XMRV infection results from having CFS and not the other way you still can't say (Wessley, et al) that it is actually related to psychology. If a CFS patients immune system is worse than someone's who is on immune surpressing drugs, CBT is not likely to help them. I don't see large programs offering CBT to people with transplants in order to help their symptoms. You would be laughed at.

Given the fact that viruses in the same family as XMRV (FeLV) cause immune surpression I think it is looking more likely that XMRV is the root cause.

I think we might be looking at XMRV causes immune disfunction in a host. Host gets lots of viruses (which threw people off for years as they thought these viruses might be the cause since they were more visible). Host gets very sick.

If this is the scenario the obvious question is why do some people fight off XMRV and not others? Some sort of genetic factor like the one identified in some people that allows them to not get AIDS even when exposed to HIV?

I really am concerned about transmission, and I hope that more studies come out "pronto" regarding ease/difficulty and modes of transmission. Of course, I also don't know if I am xmrv+. (Maybe I need to get tested first, then worry.) I have worked in a building where there are many people with cancer, many with autoimmune illnesses, and some with cfs type symptoms...

leaves - in this study, it appear immunodepression was first, as these are transplant patients, etc.

Click to expand...

Well, I think it's obviously more likely that immunosuppressed people would have XMRV than people without suprression of the immune system - As it's probably more likely that immunosuppressed people would catch a lot of other bacteria's and viruses... But I don't think that it implies that XMRV is an opportunistic infection in ME/CFS... I mean, immunosupressed people that had the bacteria that causes tuberculosis i n their body before getting immunosupressors have higher chance of getting sick with tuberculosis... Does it say that the tuberculosis bacteria is an opportunistic infection in those who have tuberculosis? Well, it might be opportunistic, but it is the bacteria that causes their tuberculosis.

We might have caught XMRV for various of reasons (for exmple: Genetics or perhaps just bad luck). The immunosupressed people probably caught it more than those who are not on immunosupressors, since, well, their immune system is supressed and they might catch influenza more often too. But it doesn't say that our immune system was supressed before, and than we got XMRV, and that XMRV didn't cause our illnesses. And if the WPI's numbers of about 98% ME/CFS patients that has XMRV are even somewhat close to be correct, and the precentage of healthy people (3.7%) that have it is also somewhat close to be correct, I think it's very very unlikely that XMRV is just an opportunistic infection in people with ME/CFS - Because as you can see people with suppressed immune system get XMRV probably three times more than people with a normal immune system - but not 26.49 more times (which is the proportion between 98 and 3.7).

I think you are right. The logic holds. It makes me feel very hopeful for my sister and the others here on the forum. After all of the false hope over the last 25 years I am still having trouble believing it somewhat...

The scary implication is what is happening to the immune system of people with CFS. Think about it. There is an increased incidence of 7% of XMRV between people taking drugs to surpress their immune system over the health controls. In the original WPI study in science the number of CFS patients with it was 65% (or there about, too lazy to look). They then said it was actually higher.

That means if you have CFS your immune system is more trashed than a group on immune surpressing drugs. That should get someone's attention...

Click to expand...

I think you might very well be wrong here. It might just mean that some of these 2-3% of healthy people with XMRV, and 10% of immunsuppressed people with XMRV, might get ME/CFS because of their XMRV (and than the number of ME/CFS patients with XMRV would be 100% - and it might be that it's just 98% in the WPI's study because their methods might not be able to find XMRV whenever it's there, and/or because the 2% didn't have ME/CFS).

Well, I think it's obviously more likely that immunosuppressed people would have XMRV than people without suprression of the immune system - As it's probably more likely that immunosuppressed people would catch a lot of other bacteria's and viruses... But I don't think that it implies that XMRV is an opportunistic infection in ME/CFS... I mean, immunosupressed people that had the bacteria that causes tuberculosis i n their body before getting immunosupressors have higher chance of getting sick with tuberculosis... Does it say that the tuberculosis bacteria is an opportunistic infection in those who have tuberculosis? Well, it might be opportunistic, but it is the bacteria that causes their tuberculosis.

We might have caught XMRV for various of reasons (for exmple: Genetics or perhaps just bad luck). The immunosupressed people probably caught it more than those who are not on immunosupressors, since, well, their immune system is supressed and they might catch influenza more often too. But it doesn't say that our immune system was supressed before, and than we got XMRV, and that XMRV didn't cause our illnesses. And if the WPI's numbers of about 98% ME/CFS patients that has XMRV are even somewhat close to be correct, and the precentage of healthy people (3.7%) that have it is also somewhat close to be correct, I think it's very very unlikely that XMRV is just an opportunistic infection in people with ME/CFS - Because as you can see people with suppressed immune system get XMRV probably three times more than people with a normal immune system - but not 26.49 more times (which is the proportion between 98 and 3.7).

Am I wrong here people?

Click to expand...

This study makes no direct reference to cfs - it does say if you have rti, you are 50% more likely to have xmrv - but still at a low number.

You can't really assume anything about cfs/xmrv from this study. But your point is a good one - how could the correlation with cfs be that high, and so much lower in immunocompromised patients if xmrv is just opportunistic in crs?